-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
We have previously discussed the events at Widener Law School regarding Professor Lawrence Connell and Dean Linda Ammons, here, here, and here. The university formed a committee to hear the allegations of racial harassment, sexual discrimination, and retaliation. The committee, in its report, found no clear and convincing evidence of a university code violation on the racial harassment or sexual discrimination allegations.
The committee did find clear and convincing evidence pertaining to retaliation. Thomas Neuberger, Connell’s attorney, characterizes Connell’s actions not as retaliatory but as a defense against against false charges.
Ammons recommended, and the university accepted and required, that Connell submit to a psychological evaluation and anger management counseling. Connell has been suspended for a year without pay. These actions will look retaliatory if Connell’s lawsuit ever makes it to a jury.
Connell is suing Ammons, the university, and the two students who made the accusations, alleging defamation. The lawsuit seeks $1.8 in lost wages and benefits that would have accrued in the 12 years he had planned to continue working. Connell also is seeking additional damages for harm to his reputation, humiliation, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
Widener Law is a fourth-tier law school and this situation will do little to move it up. However, this incident could affect the reputation of Widener University. Where were the Board of Trustees while all this was going down?
H/T: Legal Insurrection, VC, The Inquirer.
I have very mixed feelings about this case. I don’t like the University’s making a psychiatric evaluation part of his contrition because it smacks of punishment and as a mental health professional I don’t trust one meeting judgments of a person’s mental state. To fully evaluate anybody’s psychiatric condition takes time and I suspect quickie judgments.
Also the statements made by the students re their discussions with Connell
strike me as credible. Had they been more lurid in detail it would be possible to infer vitriol on their part. However, they were moderate, though certainly indicating his state of mind. Were I in the School’s position I would have fired the guy, but I would have done it outright, without the added sadism used to protect their legal interests.
how far do you have to go….
I am betting Bronshtein would have wanted more opportunity….born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein and changed his name…to Trotsky….exiled from the USSR, ended up in Mexico and then assassinated by a KGB agent….have far to you have to go before they let you go….apparently the Russian KGB reaches as far as Blackwater/Xe the CIA…hmmmmmm
Come on. The Soviet system? Just because you have to pick from a list of 4? You can always get your own doc too, you know. Do you think Stalin gave you a choice? The Prof could resign and then avoid it all. Was that available to Trotsky?
Recall that under many workers compensation systems in various states you must choose your physician from a list of three chosen by your employer. Is that Soviet style too?
Four sounds fair to me.
In their Formal Complaint,the students the students allege:
Professor Connell said that he finds a person who is shooting at black folks to be less dangerous than a person who is just shooting randomly. He also stated that he did not “get the point” of having laws against hate crimes. This was after we discussed a case about a man who shot into a black family’s home because he did not want black people moving into the neighborhood.
(The Committee found that he did not use those exact words and pointed out that a hate crime violator was more predictable than a random violator)
“On the same day as [the in-class discussion of the Goetz case], after class, four students stayed to further discuss one of the cases with the Professor. The students in that group were Nadege (a Black student), Jennifer (a Latina student), and two White students. We were discussing the court’s reasoning for the case described. We talked for more than fifteen minutes. Nadege Tandoh left and the three other students were still in the classroom. Immediately after Nadege left, Professor Connell said, “What you have to understand is that, at that time in New York, Black folk were terrorizing the rest of the population.” Jennifer said, “Well,I am sure that, in a diverse state like New York, black people were not the only ones committing crimes.” Professor Connell said “You mean to tell me that, if you saw a black man walking on the same side of the street as you, you are not going to cross the street?” At this point, one of the other students looked like she was covering up her shock. When Jennifer said “no, if I crossed the street, it wouldn’t be because of his race,” Professor Connell replied, “Oh, really? Where are you from?” Jennifer replied, “Camden, New Jersey. Lots of minorities live there, so I just don’t think like that.” Professor Connell replied, “Well, Camden is a mess.”
(Professor Connell disputes this conversation)
There’s more and they deal with all manner of revealing comments about examples of crimes committed by people named “Tyrone.” Allegations of sexual stereotyping and some rather weird comments about statutory rape victims.. The retaliation appears to deal with allegations of emailing other students about the accusers.
He may enjoy academic freedom from institutional censorship. However he’ll receive no freedom from my strongly held belief we have a jerk on our hands and his employment fate is more than appropriate. He wouldn’t want me on that jury deciding, by a preponderance of evidence, if truth is an absolute defense to his claims.
I agree, Carol. The deck has been stacked — he has to choose “from a list of four individuals provided to him by the University”, and the other terms are not ones to which anyone in his or her right mind would willingly submit, IMO. As you rightly state, “Comparison with soviet system sadly way too appropriate.”
Again, from “Legal Insurrection” (from David Drumm’s posting):
” Professor Connell will undergo a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist of his choice selected from a list of four individuals provided to him by the University. The purpose of this evaluation will be to determine his fitness for his teaching position, particularly in view of his retaliatory response to the student complaints lodged against him. The psychiatrist/psychologist will be advised of the reasons why the evaluation is to be conducted. Once the psychiatrist/psychologist is selected by Professor Connell, Professor Connell will instruct that individual to contact Vice Dean Kelly directly so that he/she may be advised of the reasons for the conduct of the evaluation. Professor Connell will comply with all conditions and recommendations issued by the psychiatrist/psychologist, including, without limitation, appropriate counseling and anger management, prior to the lifting of the suspension and his return to teaching duties. Not earlier than sixty (60) days prior to the end of the term of Professor Connell’s one year suspension, his psychiatrist/psychologist must send to the Dean and Vice Dean an evaluation assessing Professor Connell’s fitness to return to duties, completion of courses or training, if applicable, and a follow-up treatment plan, if any.”
I was Pro Se in med. mal case. Other side decided I should see thier shrink for thier evaluation and I was subpoenaed to do so. He took everything I said, ignored it or framed it to their advantage. Luckily medical records from others indicated this guy was wrong but he was hired by other side so found what they wanted him to. Why would th is case end up any different? Comparison with soviet system sadly way too appropriate.
Carol
ht://apainedlife.blogspot.com/
“Connell is suing Ammons, the university, and the two students who made the accusations, alleging defamation.”
************************
Suing the students, too! Sounds like guy with a chip on his shoulder meets thin-skinned dean and the result is calamitous. I’d have suspended the guy too. Suing your customers? In this economy? Frankly has it exactly right. Move on. Salvage your reputation and alleviate the stress.
That said, the death of his child is a monstrous tragedy and we call all sympathize with the father if not the professor.
It is becoming increasingly common for employers to mandate psychiatric evaluations, as a way of discrediting and ruining people. At one point, it might have been a “fire up the old resume and move on” situation (to use Frankly’s phrase), but it’s now in a different realm. Someone needs to take on the old “psychiatric reprisal” and attempt to show it for what it is…
“Widener’s requirement of a psychiatric evaluation under these circumstances clearly is intended to further damage Connell even though the committee found no conduct which reflected any alleged psychiatric or anger management issues. Connell simply defended himself.” – Legal Insurrection article
From the “Legal Insurrection” link (refer to primary article):
Widener Law School goes Soviet, demands law professor undergo psychiatric evaluation
Posted by William A. Jacobson Saturday, August 6, 2011
But Dean Ammons recommendation, accepted by the university, went much further, demanding that Connell submit to a psychiatric evaluation, undergo ”anger management” counseling, and issue an apology:
1. Professor Connell will acknowledge, in writing, his violation of the Discrimination and Harassment Code and will agree to comply fully with his contractual obligations and all policies of Widener University and Widener University School of Law in the future. Professor Connell’s acknowledgement shall be placed in his personnel file.
2. Professor Connell will undergo a psychological evaluation by a psychiatrist or psychologist of his choice selected from a list of four individuals provided to him by the University. The purpose of this evaluation will be to determine his fitness for his teaching position, particularly in view of his retaliatory response to the student complaints lodged against him. The psychiatrist/psychologist will be advised of the reasons why the evaluation is to be conducted. Once the psychiatrist/psychologist is selected by Professor Connell, Professor Connell will instruct that individual to contact Vice Dean Kelly directly so that he/she may be advised of the reasons for the conduct of the evaluation. Professor Connell will comply with all conditions and recommendations issued by the psychiatrist/psychologist, including, without limitation, appropriate counseling and anger management, prior to the lifting of the suspension and his return to teaching duties. Not earlier than sixty (60) days prior to the end of the term of Professor Connell’s one year suspension, his psychiatrist/psychologist must send to the Dean and Vice Dean an evaluation assessing Professor Connell’s fitness to return to duties, completion of courses or training, if applicable, and a follow-up treatment plan, if any.
3. Professor Connell must issue a written apology to the students against whom he has been found to have retaliated. The form and content of that apology must be provided to the Dean of the Law School for approval and will be distributed to the affected students by the Dean’s office.
These conditions are as outrageous as Widener Law School’s underlying conduct in refusing to stand up to false accusations of racism and sexism made against Connell. There was no retaliation or “anger” expressed by Connell except the vigrous defense of what were proven to be false accusations.
Widener’s requirement of a psychiatric evaluation under these circumstances clearly is intended to further damage Connell even though the committee found no conduct which reflected any alleged psychiatric or anger management issues. Connell simply defended himself.
Widener Law School Dean Linda Ammons has done further damage to her law school and her own reputation by using psychiatry as a vindictive tool against a law professor whose worst crime was defending himself against false accusations of racism and sexism.
There are plenty of IT jobs. Law professor jobs, esp. if you’re coming from a lower-ranked law school? Not so much. Maybe 100 schools with maybe one position, if that?
On top of that anyone being interviewed will have his background checked extensively since the cost of a bad choice is so high. There will be a lot of candidates (hey, steady employment!) and the school can afford to be picky. If you have any blemishes – forget it.
Finally it sounds like he’s relatively old if he’s only planning to work another 12 years. IIRC there were earlier blog posts about schools having a strong preference for younger candidates who will be publishing papers for decades to come, not older candidates who bring experience to the table.
So he’s right – this is career-ending. He has nothing to lose by pursuing the case. He won’t teach again but it would probably reopen some doors.
Third Tier and Fourth Tier Law Schools
I have no idea what life is like for a law professor, even at a 4th tier school. I am just a schmuck that works as an IT professional at companies large and small. One thing I have learned from watching the world around me is that you have to eat a certain amount of shit to stay employed. Some companies and some bosses seem to take a twisted delight in serving up heaping helpings of it. What you, as the designated eater, can do about that is very limited. You can smile and say thanks while you die inside. You can hope (and in some cases work toward getting) a new boss. You can find work on another plantation in hopes of reducing your intake. And, finally, if the conditions are right, you can sue.
But that last option is the worst. You are very unlikely to win and it will be a Pyrrhic victory. Particularly I would think in a narrow field like law prof. Every HR department in the world will know your name and even if you were badly mistreated you will still be known as a trouble maker. People who do not understand that live in a world I can’t comprehend.
This guy would have been much better off had he fired up the old resume & moved on without all the drama.
Morning, AY. I agree that whatever one thinks of his politics — whatever one thinks about what he’s done — there’s no reason for him to simply capitulate…
AN,
Thank you…
Whatever one thinks of Connell, the following is a sad twist to the story:
Neuberger said Monday that neither he nor Connell would comment on the suit further, citing the unexpected death Friday afternoon of Connell’s daughter, Molly. Providing medical care for Molly, who was disabled and institutionalized, was a major reason Connell cited for fighting for his job at Widener. (from the law.com link, April 11, 2011)
How do you determine what “tier” a law school is on?
AY, that story has gotten so convoluted that we will never know the truth of what happened. Everyone will spin it to their own advantage. Connell may be about to learn the truth of the comment attributed to Voltaire: “I have been ruined twice in my life. Once when I was sued and lost, and once when I sued and won.”
OS, I disagree with him politically….But, should he take it lying down…or just roll over?
One wonders if the evolution from left to right in the federal courts is bleeding over into law schools.
I see that his attorney, Thomas Neuberger, said, “He is going to start looking for work, applying for professor’s jobs all up and down the East Coast.”
Good luck on that. I can just hear the muffled laughter coming from the office of the head of the faculty search committee. Especially since it is on his record that he is willing to sue an employer for $1.8 million dollars. Can you spell r-a-d-o-a-c-t-i-v-e?
Just the guy for Glenn Beck U.